Two retired senior police officers yesterday failed in a High Court attempt to block a private prosecution over their role in the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster.

Three judges at the High Court in London refused to quash a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to allow a private prosecution launched by the Hillsborough Family Support Group. They rejected arguments by lawyers for former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield and former Superintendent Bernard Murray that the refusal by the DPP, David Calvert-Smith, to take over and discontinue the prosecution was 'unreasonable, perverse and unlawful'.

The two face accusations of manslaughter and wilful neglect of public duty at the time of the disaster, which claimed 96 lives.

But Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Cresswell and Mr Justice Latham quashed the DPP's decision to allow a further charge against Mr Duckenfield of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.

The families allege Mr Duckenfield lied about the circumstances in which a gate was opened when Liverpool met Nottingham Forest at Sheffield Wednesday's ground in an FA Cup semi-final, leading to the crush of fans which resulted in the deaths.

The judges overturned South Yorkshire Police Authority's decision to withdraw financial support for the two former officers' defence, which it made after receiving legal advice that funding the men's defence was outside its legal powers. Because the family group prolonged legal argument by supporting the police authority on the funding issue, the judges ordered it to pay part of the costs, likely to be a five-figure sum.

The group's vice chairman, Phil Hammond, said after the hearing: 'This is a big victory for us and the sooner the cases go ahead the better.

'The public has been generous in the past and will help us again to provide our legal costs.'

Mr Duckenfield and Mr Murray said in a statement: 'We welcome the fact that the High Court has ruled that the police authority acted lawfully in deciding to provide funding for our defence, and that it overturned the DPP's decision not to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Duckenfield for an alleged offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

'We are naturally disappointed that the court did not do the same with the charges of manslaughter.'

Lord Justice Laws said the DPP 'might lawfully have decided to discontinue' but he had taken 'a perfectly proper approach' in deciding to let the prosecution go ahead.

In a ruling with important implications for the police, the judge declared that local police authorities 'have power to provide financial assistance to officers and ex-officers in the defence of private prosecutions or judicial review'.